Thursday 10th July 2025
Blog Page 1011

The revolution will be live-streamed

0

I read less than I used to. This is not through design, and is not indicative of a loss of interest, or a loss of passion. As a literature student in English and French, I love books, and all forms of narrative fiction. Rather, I have simply been busy. This is not due to work; prelims have long since passed, heralding with them the end of term and the beginning of relative independence. It is not even due to sleeping, which second to reading should be the favourite hobby of the committed literature student. Instead, I have been playing video games.

The rhetoric surrounding this under-rated art form is a simple one. Video games kill brain cells. Video games lead to violent crime. Video games are corrupting our young. All of these charges have been levelled at video games – but also at rock music, novels and film before them. Indeed, the latter medium provoked genuine fear and consternation on the viewing of ‘L’arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat’ in January 1896, the famous early clip in which cinema viewers are reported to have fled the screen as the train enters their field of vision. As with many new advances, there is a habitual fear of the misunderstood.

That is the issue at the heart of the matter – a vicious clash between reactionary social conservatism and legitimate art. Consider the skill of the artists involved in Campo Santo’s Firewatch (2016), employing a spectacularly simple blend of naturalistic landscapes and minimalistic poster art to forge a unique stylistic background to a deftly handled emotional narrative. Consider the team of writers needed to craft the story, side-stories, lore and dialogue of vast role playing games such as Skyrim (2011) Grand Theft Auto V (2013) and The Witcher III (2015). Consider the powerful performance capture of industry veterans such as Ashley Johnson, Nolan North, Emily Rose and Troy Baker in Naughty Dog’s epic narratives The Last of Us (2013) and Uncharted 4 (2016). It goes without saying that video games are art – anyone who claims otherwise demonstrates not a lack of understanding of the medium, but of art itself.

But the claim goes further. Even if video games’ artistic value is begrudgingly accepted, social conservatives would have you believe that video games, for all of their cultural and financial heft, are not true art, because art and mainstream relevance are incompatible. Not so. E3, a weekend of presentations, live demos and marketing which drew in 950,000 views during just the preamble, alongside 21 million streams on livestreaming site Twitch in total, is the ultimate debunker of this fallacy. Whereas in the past, companies such as Sony, Microsoft et al would rely on celebrity cameos, comedy sketches and tedious gimmicks to cater to the ever-growing crowds, those at the pinnacle of this growing form now realise that, with a pre-built audience, gamers want to see new experiences, not buzz words and stage tomfoolery.

Indeed, while developers Bethesda and Ubisoft, heavyweight giants in the gaming world, showed off impressive projects with slick presentations, and while Microsoft’s gambit of showing off new hardware, equipment and software largely paid off more readily than in the past, Sony’s press conference was nearly flawless, almost devoid of speech apart from a heartfelt tribute to the victims of the attack on the LGBTQI+ community in Orlando, and a handful of linking segments. Other than that, the trailers and demos themselves did the talking, in a presentation which fully embraced the new minimalism of video game marketing: the medium itself no longer needs to be sold; instead, it is time to present new narratives.

And that is the most marked shift. Whereas before, gameplay, graphics and gimmicks were the order of the day at E3, it is now storytelling which is at the forefront of Sony’s output, surely already furthering their status as industry leaders as the sales of the PS4 system and the cheers for a quieter, more considered Kratos, the newly nuanced protagonist of the God of War series testify. Just follow the trajectory of Kratos as a character and as a cultural icon: whereas a decade ago a player would engage in brutal bloodletting and sex mini-games as facilitated by a barebones story, now Kratos is grounded by a son. As the official description put it, “This game is about Kratos teaching his son how to be a god, and the kid teaching Kratos how to be human again”, a theme expounded by Christopher Judge, the new voice of Kratos: “how can you be a father when you have never been fathered?”

Just as Kratos has been humanised, so have video games, to such an extent where the term itself no longer befits the gamut of emotional and narrative depth accessible by the medium. I would propound the term ‘interactive narratives’ – it’s time that we proudly reclaimed such experiences, and began to give them the treatment that any art deserves: namely scholarly debate, critical analysis, and a recognition of their craft and scope.

It’s been a long time coming, but perhaps we are finally on the precipice of adding to our range of writings on prose, poetry, theatre and film. The revolution will be live-streamed. Press X to start.

Human lives must trump society’s borders

0

2016 has proven to be one of the most disturbing and tragic years in recent decades, and it is only July.

The ‘stars’ on the earth seem to be fading – from celebrity greats such as David Bowie and Muhammad Ali who promoted equality through their passions and professions, to the stars of unity on national and international flags. In the West, the United States of America is tearing itself apart in the wake of the upcoming presidential election; Great Britain gashed a hole in the European project. Tensions between nations in the far East are tighter than ever, and the ongoing refugee crisis is only getting worse. It would simply be an impossibility to mention all of the unrest occurring in the world right now, as well as illustrating these horrors in one single cartoon. Yet there is a single word that strongly links all the unrest together, and it is that of ‘borders’.

From literal borders of walls and barbed wire; to economic barriers of entry, immigration borders and those that side with the personal; it is these borders that ooze hatred throughout the world. In these uncertain and dark times, it’s easy to become cynical and turn to satire in order to create our own individual peace with global anxieties. Yet only a year ago, we laughed at the possibility of Trump becoming the chosen presidential candidate for the Republican party in the US. Today this is no laughing matter, and I find it simply impossible to draw a laugh out of this deeply-disturbed world.

Bring on Brexit

0

Following the decision of the British people to exit the European Union, supporters of the Remain side immediately lashed out in hateful, alarmist, and dangerously illiberal ways. As the proud citizen of a non-EU country, much of the reaction struck me as bizarre, and plainly absurd.

Today in the New Yorker, remain supporter Bee Wilson wonders whether Britons will be able to continue eating the foods they love, suggesting that outside of the EU access to such simple pleasures as apricots and olive oil will be in jeopardy. Others seem to believe that Brexit will somehow prevent them from international travel; my Facebook feed is filled with posts about folks enjoying their last holidays to Europe. Believe it or not, most countries in the world are not in the EU, and those of us from those countries still travel and eat fruit. Though you wouldn’t think it listening to outraged remain voters, some of us even have electricity.

What’s truly odd, however, is the assumption made by many that Brexit is a rejection of internationalism that will isolate Britain. I watched the vote in Paris, with a group that included Americans, Germans, French and English, and cheered as the UK voted to leave. Exiting the EU is not a pulling up of the country’s drawbridge, but an opening to the rest of the world. Accusations of racism seem particularly bizarre, though there were unfortunate attitudes held by some Leave campaigners. What could be more racist than an organization which ensures largely white Europeans can enter the country no questions asked, but those from the (largely non-white) rest of the world are routinely turned away, despite their qualifications and cultural or familial ties to the UK?

As Matthew Ellery of the Get Britain Out campaign has written, “We want an outward facing United Kingdom; we don’t want to be a part of an elite gentlemen’s ‘club’, which believes Europeans are superior to people from the rest of the world.” It is puzzling to me that students who fervently decry any perceived euro-centrism in university curricula are the first to laud its most obvious and concrete manifestation.

Even stranger are the attempts by supposed liberals who continually decry an elite they claim is out of touch and ignores the working class, to ignore the votes of that same working class because it’s members are allegedly unable to understand their own interests. Arguing for MPs to ignore the referendum or for a second referendum to be held on these grounds is tantamount to claiming that the working class are too stupid to be trusted with the vote. It is the worst form of elitism to suggest that we, being Oxonians after all, understand what’s best for disaffected voters in post-Industrial cities and towns better than they themselves do.

In this very paper, Toby Williams claimed that there never should have been a referendum because, “Many people have far more pressing concerns, such as putting food on the table and paying the bills, than ensuring they are sufficiently informed to vote on every piece of legislation that comes up in Parliament.” This is a clear suggestion that those who struggle financially cannot be trusted to participate in our democracy, plain and simple. Ordinary people understood the importance of this referendum, and thought carefully about it. If ordinary voters cannot be trusted to determine such fundamental questions regarding the nature of the British state as its membership in the EU, then why should they be trusted at all? This attitude is a shameful betrayal of the liberal principles central to Britain’s identity, which the remain campaign claimed to stand for.

There are many reasonable arguments against leaving the EU, and it will take time to see whether the economic forecasts warning against Brexit will pan out. However, the reaction to this vote by a vocal, elite minority has been hysterical, misleading, and deeply illiberal. Brexit is not isolationist – indeed, precisely the opposite is true. By separating itself from an elitist, insular, and implicitly racist club, the UK can now prosper even more by engaging with the whole world, rather than just a small slice of it.

Labour’s Flawed Electoral System

0

The Labour Party may well be a mass membership organisation. Jeremy Corbyn, however much some want to topple him, was indeed democratically elected by the members. But neither of these two things change the undisputable fact that Labour’s membership and electoral system are currently severely hindering its ability to act as an effective opposition.

Regardless of their ambitions in the next general election, the fact of the matter is that currently Labour is the official opposition party in this country, despite speculation of their being superseded by the SNP should this inner party turmoil not come to an end soon.

The role of the opposition party, arguably one of the most important structural pillars in our parliamentary system, is to question the current government’s decisions and to hold them accountable to the public. Without an effective opposition, we risk affording the government too much power, a clearly dangerous position, which can ultimately lead to what amounts to a dictatorship.

In a Facebook post today, renowned lefty, Billy Bragg, focused on the members’ democratic power within the party and dismissed the importance of the PLP’s verdict and what it revealed about the party’s confidence in Corbyn: “The PLP have had their chance to express their opinion. Now there must be a leadership contest so that the members can have their say, after which the electorate will vote on the outcome. That’s how democracy works.” What Mr. Bragg fails to understand is the absolutely pivotal importance of the parliamentary members’ approval and support of their leader.

Yesterday’s PLP vote, in which the no confidence motion passed by the overwhelming majority of 172 to 40, provided crystal clear evidence that Corbyn doesn’t have the support of his parliamentary party.

If you end up with a leader supposedly wanted by 60 per cent of the members, yet unanimously unsupported by his MPs, something has clearly gone seriously wrong within the party’s internal structure. In my mind, the MPs and MEPs should have a greater say over who their leader is, since they’re the ones expected to be working directly with him on a day-to-day basis. The idea that any Tom, Dick or Harry could buy the right to help decide who leads the Labour party for £3 is so ill-thought through and idealistic, that it miserably fails to acknowledge how easily abused this system can be. It’s common knowledge that during the last leadership election, thousands of Corbynistas and even duplicitous Tories bought membership just to intentionally skew the results.

It’s clearly unfortunate that there’s a clash of preferences between the PLP and the rest of the members over who should be leading the party, as in theory an enfranchised membership is desirable. Yet in the interest of maintaining the party as a single, coherent, unit with the power to contend law-making in parliament, the PLP’s verdict must take precedence. In challenging situations such as our current one, pragmatism must triumph over idealism.

It’s all well and good clinging to these noble socialist ideals of the party being a voice of the people and every member standing on a level footing, but if they can’t even function as an opposition in parliament, what’s the point? Whilst the Labour party lacks a leader that can unite the party and command the support of his MPs in parliament, it will be inhibited in carrying out its current, primary role as the party of the opposition.

We should consider it telling that the Tories clearly don’t feel under any pressure or scrutiny whilst Corbyn is leading the opposition. This was made clear in David Cameron’s comments during this Wednesday’s PMQs: after a relatively tame interaction between the two, Cameron pulled no punches as he directly questioned Corbyn’s leadership: “It might be in my party’s interest for him to sit there, it’s not in the national interest and I would say, for heaven’s sake man, go.” Then again, this could just be a cheap shot from the recently resigned Cameron, taking advantage of the current turmoil within his opposite number’s party.

Given that Leave have already gone back on various pledges made during the campaign, such as the now infamous £350bn supposedly pledged for the NHS, or even the suggestion published in The Independent that Boris, Gove and Farage would support its privatisation, surely having a united opposition in place is more important than ever?

However noble or democratic the concept of mass membership may be, there’s no denying that it’s at least partially responsible for Labour’s current crisis and inability to function as the coherent and united opposition our country so desperately needs in these times of uncertainty.

Brexit likely to impact EU research funding for Oxford

1

Cherwell has found that contributions from public and private donors within the EU, which represented 12% of Oxford’s aggregate income from research grants last year and are maintained through close institutional co-operation, may be impacted by Brexit post-2020, depending on the outcome of negotiations. Research donations and contracts are Oxford’s single largest source of income, representing 42% of the university’s consolidated income in 2014-15.

The exact figure of EU research funding to Oxford has been disputed; Times Higher Education claim a fifth of Oxford’s research funding comes from the EU, whilst Digital Science claims the figure is up to a quarter. However, according to Oxford University financial statements, in the 2015 academic year, out of the £522.9 million the university received in research grants £60.4 million came from the European Commission and other EU government bodies, and £8.5 million came from other EU grantors, meaning 13.1% of funding came from EU sources.

The News and Information office for Oxford University’s Research Services’ European Team told Cherwell, “Oxford received more than £66 million in EU research funding last year – some 12 per cent of overall research income. While we have a strong stream of competitively-won awards from many other sources, including industry, charities and the UK Government, we cannot overlook or underestimate the importance of access to ERC grants. That’s why the University will argue strongly in the coming months to keep this access, including the right for Oxford academics to lead on collaborative projects with European partners.”

Institutionally, Oxford University and the EU share a close relationship. Horizon 2020 work programmes in Oxford include Excellent Science, which provides funding opportunities for scientific research through the European Research Counciland the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions; Industrial Leadership, which promotes industrial innovation including industrial work programmes Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies and Access to Risk Finance, helping research companies gain easier access to loans; and Societal Challenges, which funds collaborative research in the social sciences to address problems such as demographic change, security and climate action.

Besides these three main pillars of EU funded research, other EU-funded programmes include the Joint Research Commission, the European Commission’s in-house science research service, and nuclear energy research and innovation projects in Oxford funded by Euratom.

In the immediate future, it appears little will change. Horizon 2020, at least, will continue for another 3 years, after which the University may have to look for other funding sources, depending on the Brexit deal reached. In a statement on Gov.uk the government assured, “the referendum result has no immediate effect on those applying to or participating in Horizon 2020. UK researchers and businesses can continue to apply to the programme in the usual way. The future of UK access to European research and innovation funding will be a matter for future discussions. Government is determined to ensure that the UK continues to play a leading role in European and international research and innovation.”

The Research Services’ European Team is currently preparing FAQs that will appear on the University of Oxford webpages as well as the Europe Gateway

Brexit: have you heard the good news?

0

Some of you may have missed the fallout from the recent EU referendum, which by all accounts was a minimal and rather subdued affair – a real blink-and-you’ll-miss-it geopolitical disaster.

If, like me, you’ve been too busy aggressively trading against the Pound and applying for dual citizenship to fully take notice of the country crumbling around your feet, then the outlook after Brexit-week-one might seem a little perplexing. The media coverage has been a bit like a 24-hour version of the ‘fake news’ they have in episodes of Dr. Who, used to create an impression of imminent apocalypse; except it’s been scarier because Diane Abbot’s been on a lot of it.

Speaking of which, I think we can all agree that what is sadly often missing from fictional representations of unimaginable catastrophes is an appreciation of how difficult it is for the viewer at home to keep track of the many different threads of disaster. Like having an orgy in a house of mirrors, it’s easy to get overwhelmed by how absolutely everybody is totally fucked from every possible perspective.

Confusion is the problem. Particularly in the days since the referendum, in which we’ve watched the country trying to vomit out a decade’s worth of news in a single week. A suspicious volume of news, one might say. So much news, in fact, that I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole “referendum” thing isn’t just a Westminster plot to incapacitate Laura Kuenssberg through over-work. See! More news – right there!

As is clear, the proliferation of news is practically unstoppable. Thus, even the attentive viewer may be in need of some guidance as to what exactly – to use a technical word – has ‘happened’.

Thursday 23rd:

Thursday was referendum day, and by 10pm, although we didn’t know it yet, we’d already ‘made Britain Great again’.

This is the first bone of contention. Some argue that we have ‘made Britain great again’. Others suggest that we have ‘put the great into Great Britain’; by my calculations this would make us ‘Great Great Britain’, a name which seems not only descriptively un-creative, but also uncharacteristically enthusiastic.

The nail-biting eight hour results show started as it meant to continue: managing to combine terror and tedium in practically unbearable quantities. Almost immediately Wales decided unequivocally to leave, which is funny because last time I was in Wales, so did I.

Friday 24th:

This was the day ‘Brexit’ went from seeming like an unpleasant kind of cereal to seeming like an unpleasant kind of serial – one which refused to end.

By daybreak our great floating ham of a Prime Minister had resigned, much to the dismay of all of those who had just gotten used to his steady and predictable level of incompetence. During the interludes between fresh news, footage of Dave resigning was continuously replayed, often under a black and white filter, to show us how it will look to future school children watching documentaries about the causes of Britain’s decline and eventual collapse into the sea. Meanwhile, a spitting and sweaty Nigel Farage addressed his dutiful planet from the new UKIP Deathstar, so visibly aroused by victory that he was barely able to maintain his human form.

Most channels balanced these disquieting images with soothing footage of stock-market traders screaming at each other across their offices while desperately trying to hold three telephones to their faces and gaping at various plummeting graph lines.

The weekend:

As prominent Brexiteers helpfully reminded us, the clever thing to do after plunging ourselves voluntarily into a situation of unprecedented division and antagonism is to ‘unite’, ‘come together’, and most importantly, ‘move forward’. It’s hard to know what to take from this, except that we must have previously imported most of our appreciation of irony from the EU. But the advice certainly does provide a moment of reflection to anyone who previously thought that Michael Gove couldn’t appear any more punchable.

Monday 27th:

The UK’s credit-rating was downgraded from triple A to post-apocalyptic. This means the outlook is not good for the UK’s short- to medium- to long-term future.

Later on, George Osborne was found alive, in hiding, and promptly captured, shaved and hauled in front of a camera. This provided an acute reminder that nothing screams market-confidence like senior political figures being positioned, wide-eyed and trembling, in front of auto-cues and stammering through the lines: ‘we have robust plans for Britain’s future outside the EU ’.

Tuesday 28th:

Not wanting the referendum result to unduly disadvantage the Tories, the ever fair-minded Labour Party took it upon themselves to make the Conservatives look well-organized – comparatively, at least. Pretty soon, with a heavy heart, I too sent my letter of resignation to Jeremy, (I had been assured this was very much the ‘in’ thing to do). Soon enough, the front bench were running out of seats to resign from, leaving poor old Jeremy, John McDonnell and the work-experience-boy-turned-Shadow-Justice-Minister in a desperately understaffed office.

Wednesday 29th:

To be honest, by this point I got bored and switched channels to Grand Designs. But I’m pretty sure I can piece things together.

With no effective Prime Minister, and no leader of the opposition, things quickly went from bad to Michael Gove. By dawn, crowds were pictured straining desperately against the reinstated Hadrian’s Wall border with Scotland, while others smelted down their worthless Sterling into spear heads and other rudimentary tools. The UKIP Deathstar eclipsed the sun and Emperor Farage looked down upon his creation and saw that it was good. Rural England was swept by uncontrolled fires and outbreaks of bubonic plague, while Jeremy Corbyn insisted he still held the widespread support of the grassroots Labour Party members.

On the bright side, I was just moving the sofa and found a whole euro!… enough to purchase safe passage to that mythic free world beyond the closely-guarded borders of Great-Great-Britain.

 

 

 

Scottish Independence: a referendum too far?

0

The course of politics, Shakespeare may well have said, never did run smooth. The EU referendum was always going to disturb that path in some way. A seed first planted in January 2013 and watered by the unexpected Conservative majority of last year, the referendum, now sprung up but bearing an unexpected flower, sprawls across the course of British politics and national life like an impenetrable overgrowth in whose obfuscating tendrils everyone and everything’s fates seem doomed to be entangled. All now is in doubt: the Conservative and Labour leaderships, Britain’s immediate economic prospects, and even how or if at all the result of this referendum will be enacted.

Nowhere in Britain is such doubt more keenly felt than in Scotland. The surprise loss of the SNP majority at Holyrood and the surge in Conservative support in the elections of earlier this year seemed to point to an interesting coming term. The SNP not only had no clear mandate for their proposed second referendum on independence, but finally, it seemed, they would be grilled by a competent opposition. Meanwhile, Sturgeon would have to placate the large swathes of her party’s membership who wanted a second referendum as soon as possible, while confronting the reality that not only were they unlikely to win an immediate second vote, but that the constitutional question was effectively off the table.

Then the Referendum happened. Any such predictions are in pieces on the floor. Bitter, prolonged, and decisive as the last referendum on Scottish independence was, Scotland was promised continued membership of the EU if it remained in the UK The EU Referendum has result has changed that and, as unpleasant as a second referendum may be, there are now grounds for one.

Nevertheless, a second referendum on Scottish independence oughtn’t to, and I doubt will, happen immediately. Tempting as an SNP government may find it to capitalise upon the immediate shock and disappointment of many Scots and hold a referendum as soon as possible, there is no guarantee the independence case would win one. The EU Referendum showed a clear majority of Scots in favour of remaining in the EU, but subsequent polling, while mostly showing higher support than previously for independence, does not show support for independence to be as high as might be expected and few put it as high as the sixty per cent the SNP claim to want to win a referendum. Many Scots who voted to remain did so chiefly because they wanted to keep the UK together.

Meanwhile, a number of options must be explored before another Scottish referendum can take place, some of which, if successful, may invalidate the need for such a referendum altogether. The Scottish government ought to wait till Brexit negotiations are finished and there is a clear idea of what Britain’s exit will look like. A referendum should take place only once it is clear whether Scotland could continue in the EU without the arduous process of application and readmission or if the UK could negotiate an advantageous continued relationship with Europe. Without these assurances, any campaign would be fought in a mire of conjecture and dogma. We don’t need another referendum like that.

Scotland, and indeed Northern Ireland, could also push for continued membership of the EU while remaining in the United Kingdom. While it’s easy, and very often right, to be sceptical about the SNP’s approach to anything that may delay the prospect of independence, the recent foundation of a committee of experts aiming to keep Scotland in the EU and Sturgeon’s own apparent lurch towards this stance suggest that the Scottish government could be aiming for such a position. Unusual as it may seem, such an arrangement would not be impossible. The Danish realm contains both Denmark, an EU member, and Greenland, a former EU member. This option has its complexities, but it also has precedent and in an organisation able to make up its own rules, only reciprocation on the part of the EU would be necessary to keep Scotland in the EU if the Scottish Government chose to take this approach. Given that such an outcome may also abrogate the cause for a second independence referendum, the UK government would be wise not to stand in its way.

Alternatively, the Scottish government could attempt to override Brexit. This view is rather dubious as it rests on the untested belief that the Scottish Parliament has the right to veto Westminster on matters regarding the EU It furthermore seems unlikely that the EU would recognise a Scottish attempt to block the whole UK’s exit from Europe given the much-expressed desire of EU officials for this process to be carried out as quickly and as cleanly as possible. Even if it were practicable, the Scottish Parliament would likely earn the justified ire of many for blocking a proposition supported by the majority of the British public.

The course of politics, European, British, and Scottish, is clouded and overgrown. I offer no predictions, but doubt. While a second independence referendum is not inevitable if some of the outlined options are followed, the continued integrity of the UK cannot be presupposed if Brexit complete and utter occurs. As a country, we have a long yomp before we know if that will be the case. Only once Britain’s future in Europe is known can the Scottish question be posed again and a fair debate be had of it.

A Student’s Guide to Wimbledon

0

Wimbledon, as the epitome of middle class summer revelling, may scare off students. Who wants to spend their entire student loan for the privilege to experience what they would from the comfort of their own living rooms but with the added risk of sunburn? However, having just been to the land of green lawns and white skirts for the first time, there are certainly some ways in which students can make the most of Wimbledon on a budget.

The Queue

The most cost efficient way to get tickets into Wimbledon is by queuing up in the early morning. Don’t be phased by the reports of people camping out seemingly weeks in advance, if you can work against every teenage fibre in your body, arriving at 6am should see you able to get a ground pass at the very least. There is access to food stalls and, crucially, coffee and being assigned a queue number negates the need to be passive aggressive towards queue jumpers. The atmosphere fluctuates with the weather and clapping the sun when it comes out is indicative of the delirious tiredness of the crowd. Never fear though, napping is accepted, nay expected. In general, the queue has a great vibe and is enjoyable if your outlook, at least, is sunny.

Tickets

Once you get through the seemingly endless queue then you are faced with the decision of which ticket to buy and on 4 hours sleep this can be quite bewildering. A ground pass is £25 and this allows you to access all the courts except the top two. On a tight budget this is probably the best option as you can still watch Federer from Murray mound as long as you aren’t opposed to a few grass stains on your shorts. Also, seeing some of the less popular players in real life on the other courts gives you a much more personal experience with all the atmosphere still intact. There is also the added option of, if you can stomach it, another queue later in the afternoon to get resales of centre and first court tickets at £10 and £5 respectively, the proceeds of which are donated to charity.

Food

Food at Wimbledon on a budget is all about planning. If you are feeling frivolous you can dine at the champagne bar with buckets of shrimp or caviar but if you didn’t happen to take £200 cash then then this is my advice: swallow your pride and do as your mother always forced you to do, pack a lunch. Yes the micro-portion of fish and chips looks tempting but the £10 price tag leaves a bitter taste and, as you may be there for 9 or more hours, you could enter into your overdraft just by snacking. The staff are quite happy for you to bring food (although, from experience, bringing a butter knife to spread your hummus is more than frowned upon) so pack more than you think you will need and you’ll be set. At £2.50 the strawberries and cream are actually quite reasonably priced and, let’s be honest, if they’re not in your Snapchat story, did you even go to Wimbledon?

Drink

In terms of water, Wimbledon has been very accommodating to the needs of their clientele and has set up water fountains all over the site so bringing a water bottle is essential. I know what you’re really wondering about though, the Pimms. At £8.30 for a glass that is approximately 10 parts ice and fruit and 1 part Pimms, it might be best to say goodbye to the old clichés and avoid it. However, in these once in a lifetime situations, throwing caution to the wind and splashing out is maybe understandable. Alternatively, they do allow you to bring your own drinks, although there are some restrictions to avoid rowdiness as there is a fine line between getting merry on the mound and throwing up on Serena Williams.

Merchandise

It is easy in the cheerful, sporty atmosphere to get overwhelmed in the gift shops and come out with Wimbledon-branded everything and a full tennis kit insisting that you absolutely, positively will get in shape this year, but be savvy. There are several ways to get a memento without paying extortionate amounts for a tin of sweets (just because it has a logo on it). There is a stall selling used championship balls quite cheaply which is nice if you’re a player or the sentimental type. Also, if you’re feeling cheeky, the plastic cups that the beer is sold in have a logo on them and won’t be reused, I am reliably informed, so sticking a few in your bag doesn’t seem too rebellious.

Wimbledon continues until 10th July so if you’re in the area I would definitely recommend going along. Be thrifty but enjoy it, being woken from my post-queue nap on Murray Mound by light applause as Djokovic won another set was surreal but will surely be one of the highlights of my summer.

 

 

Rhodes Must Fall campaigners demonstrate outside Oriel open day

2

On Thursday 30th June members of Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford demonstrated outside Oriel College’s open day.

Oluwafemi Nylander and Ntozoko Sbo Qwabe, prominent members of the anti-colonial campaign in Oxford, stood shirtless outside the college which houses the infamous statue of Cecil Rhodes. The demonstrators stood with ‘I prefer land to n******’, reportedly a Rhodes quote, and ‘All Slaves College’ painted in red paint on their chests. The latter refers to All Souls College’s Codrington Library which commemorates Christopher Codrington, a fellow of the college who amassed his fortune through plantation slavery.

Source: Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford
Source: Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford

This demonstration comes after Nylander stood outside All Souls College on 20th June, topless and wearing a chain, with the words ‘All Slaves College’ painted on his chest in red paint, intended to symbolise the bloody nature of this history.

The two men stood outside the college from 9am-4pm yesterday, and were joined intermittently by other Rhodes Must Fall protesters, including Tadiwa Madenga and Athi-Nangamso Nkopa.

Photos make it clear that Oriel student helpers were vying for attention against the protesters, despite the Oriel College website insisting that potential Oriel students would be met with “a warm welcome” when visiting the open day.

Videos of Nylander and Qwabe discussing Rhodes and colonisation with members of the public were posted on the Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford Facebook page last night, but have since been taken down.

Speaking to Cherwell for comment, demonstrator Nylander said “We had a lot of discussions with people, some of whom claimed Rhodes killed no one and that the land he stole belonged to no one. Others of whom were rightfully disgusted.”

Source: Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford
Source: Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford

On their Facebook page, Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford argued that yesterday’s demonstration was a continuation of their call for the Rhodes statue to be removed.

“We will remember that just recently, overwhelming sentiment that the statue should be REMOVED swept at both the shallow ‘listening exercise’ events that Oriel purported to host in the past two weeks. We will also remember that various student bodies and platforms including OUSU, the Oxford Union, and a plethora of MCRs and JCRs have voted for the statue to be removed. But the college continues to hold on to this white supremacist monument – showing utter disregard for democratic values, and for the voices of its students, particularly those of colour.”

The statement went on to say “We find it important that potential Orielites, and students across Oxford, should know that Oriel College, like most of Oxford, is built on the blood of black people. Blood that has never been atoned for and addressed in any way. Blood that Oriel, and the rest of Oxford continues to unashamedly bath and bask in. Blood for which people of colour continue to bear the brunt of in this space, and around the world.”

Nylander also reports a police officer entering the college and quickly leaving. It is unclear whether the police presence was directly relevant to the protest.

Oriel College has declined to comment.

Touring the Ruskin Show’s newly-defined spaces

0

It was Brian O’Doherty who said that we experience the space before we experience the art in our contemporary context. Within the confines of the blank white walls at the new Ruskin School of Art studio in Cowley, the visitor finds the finalist degree show, exhibiting the debutants of the contemporary art scene.

The show was varied, with artists exploring experimental uses of both new and traditional media, drawing influence from both popular culture and visceral self experience. This was a show that took you on a journey.

Entering the space, one was confronted with both the sound pieces that formed a part of the video installations hidden behind curtains, before moving towards the more central part of the studio. anietie oneOne video installation which stood out in particular was Lu Williams’ Scum Channel — a video installation which combined a thought-provoking exploration on female representation within a tactfully kitsch setting. In deploying figures that were uncanny and almost unsettling, one couldn’t help but remain engrossed at the questioning of paradigms that are increasingly being challenged.

The use of 3-D media was not shied away from by any means, with interactive sculptures such as Lucy Gregory’s which explored the boundaries of both space and balance, transforming things one might not consider important into works self-described as “wonderfully haptic, reshaped before the point of a total loss of use.”

In the more traditional medium of paint we find artists indulging in figurativism. From John Izatt-Lowry’s exploration of human details, to studies of classical antiquity with a light oil sketch style, to Emily Carrington Freeman’s close exploration of light and form within drapery and flesh. Khushna Sulaman Butt. figuratively depicted a scene both intense and quiet. In drawing from personal experience, the painting almost appears to be a transportive plane into the artist’s memory.

anietie three

Contrarily exploring non-figurative and eccentric methods of painting, I spoke with Ollie Bass about his art practice.

Do your concepts influence your choice of medium, or were you already predisposed to painting which has subsequently shaped your practice?

“I woke up in a version of a room that I’d already seen before, trying to reenact last night’s ideas in my head. The only possibility of success is to process these artefacts through the same painting again and again.”

Do you consider this show as a start or end of your artistic study — as an artist, do you think does one ever finish studying art?

The parameters of the institution are both a disability and a crutch. To paint in free fall is to only have yourself to box against.
Who are your influences and what would you say to yourself at the start of your degree?

I’m influenced by the shrapnel from my pockets, we are all implicated by the language of the high street. What would I say to myself? Put a higher value on clarity.
Overall, the show was a success. The large artistic corpus of ideas were realised in ways that weren’t entirely accessible, but idiosyncratic nonetheless. One can only look forward to the new creative minds that may grace the artistic forefront in the foreseeable future.